Judge Belvin Perry said he would entertain arguments to pick a jury

The judge in the Casey Anthony case opened the door today for defense attorneys to argue to change the jury-pool location for the young woman's murder trial — only under limited circumstances.

Under the current plan, Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry said a jury would be selected outside of Orlando beginning May 9 and jurors would be brought here and sequestered for a trial at the Orange County Courthouse beginning May 17 — one day later than originally planned.

But today, Perry said he would entertain arguments for changing the jury-pool location only if they can't find a jury outside of Orlando the week of May 9.

If that happens, then jury selection would begin in Orlando the following week. However, Perry said he would consider hearing arguments to find a second location outside of Orlando to pick a jury if one of the parties asked for it.

Perry has not disclosed where the first round of jury selection will happen beyond saying it would be outside of Orlando.

Also today, he said opening statements would begin May 17 in Orlando — a Tuesday. This is new because all along the opening-statements portion of the trial was always set to start on May 16.

Perry's comments came after another long hearing today dealing with scientific evidence, which concluded just before 2 p.m.

Attorneys debated evidence from Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist for the prosecution, among other issues this morning and this afternoon.

Chloroform evidence

Defense attorney Jose Baez said chloroform level evidence linked to the trunk of Casey Anthony's car should be excluded because state witness Dr. Arpad Vass, who testified about that issue, is not a chemist and other experts disputed his findings. Baez said the chloroform analysis was qualitative and not quantitative, and therefore, insignificant.

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton, however, said the experts did agree on Vass' methodology. And all Vass said is that the chloroform level identified in his analysis was higher than what is normally seen in human decomposition.

"It is for the jury...to decide whether the opinion is right or wrong," Ashton said.

Cadaver dogs

Baez later argued against admitting the evidence about the canines or cadaver dogs that signaled human decomposition inside the trunk and in the backyard of the Anthony home. He said the dogs cannot be relied upon in this case because they were not trained in "residual odor."

He suggested that based on witness testimony the odor the dogs "alerted" to may have been from either a live person or a deceased individual. He warned against making "speculations or conclusions" that the alerts were linked to 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's remains because they were not ultimately located in the car or the yard.

Baez also argued at length that the case law about admitting this as "substantive" evidence is weak.

Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick, however, said "dogs have a history of being reliable indicators" particularly when it comes to locating the decomposing remains of humans.

She noted that both dogs in this case were highly trained and considered very reliable based on their documented histories, trainings and evaluations.

"Lawyers aren't evaluated as often," she said at one point.

She also disputed that the alerts by the dogs were unconfirmed. Both dogs sensed decomposition at the Anthony home, so they confirmed each other. As for the one dog who alerted on the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, Burdick said the state's other scientific and non-scientific evidence confirms that, including air sample evidence, hair sample evidence, expert testimony about the trunk and the extreme odor coming from the car.

All those pieces "taken together" point to a deceased body being in that car, she told the judge.

Plant-root growth and remains

Earlier the prosecution and defense argued over a plant root growth report conducted by the prosecution's forensic botanist, Dr. David Hall.

Hall wrote a report giving an estimate of how long Caylee's remains likely stayed in the heavily wooded spot where they were found in December 2008.

Some plant-root growth at the scene and on the child's bones indicates the body had been at the recovery site four months or longer, according to Hall's report.

But a defense motion filed by attorney J. Cheney Mason argued that "there is no methodology utilized in his determinations and there is no supporting data in coming to his conclusions.

This morning, Dorothy Clay Sims, another defense attorney for Anthony, argued against Hall's testimony, saying it is based on "speculation and conjecture."

Earlier this week, Hall testified about plant root growth at Caylee's recovery scene. He based his conclusions on images in digital photos. And those conclusions gave some dating to the amount of time the remains were at the site.